Misplaced Pages

Talk:September 11 attacks

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthony (talk | contribs) at 21:35, 17 January 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:35, 17 January 2004 by Anthony (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.

See also Casualties Talk, US governmental response Talk and Hijackers Talk.

Old talk archived at Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Archive and Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive2

There isn't going to be any convincing of Wik, so we need to have a discussion instead of a move-war about this, please. In the form of a vote. Personally I find the whole debate a shining example of doublespeak, George Orwell would be proud, and it is sickening to me, but let's have the debate and *vote* somewhere, please. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A good idea, and one that will (hopefully) bring this whole pedantric matter to a close. My prediction is that "keep the terrorist word in" side will win handsomely. Arno 09:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK. Let's do it. Tannin
Err .... but I better point out that it is not pedantic. "Terrorist" is a value-laden, emotive word. It doesn't describe a type of action, it describes a type of judgemet about that action, and as such is inapropriate for use as an article title here. Tannin
Disagree with the latter sentence, and even Wik conceded that the attack was, objectively, a terrorist attack. Certainly it is emotionally loaded, but still is accurate. It is a disservice to truth to sanitize your vocabulary for fear of offending someone. Hence my vote for including "terrorist" in the title. Tempshill 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, I only said it was terrorist by any technical definition that ignores the judgemental content of the word. Otherwise, will you agree to call the Dresden bombings terrorist, or Israeli bombings of civilian areas in Palestine? This would be just as "accurate". --Wik 18:26, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
I will agree to have this same debate on each bombing you cite, yes, but not to make a sweeping declaration that nothing (or everything) must be called "terrorist" or "massacre" or "murder" because these words are judgmental. Tempshill 19:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We should be consistent. Either we avoid the term generally or we use it in every case where the technical definition applies. --Wik 20:12, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Encylopedias are not about technical definitions, they are about common usage. Anthony DiPierro 20:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Err... yes it is pedantric, but let's vote rather than argue. Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Google Hits

"september 11" - 3,940,000 (I think we can safely throw this one out as incidental - 151.204.210.18)
"september 11, 2001" - 2,220,000
"september 11, 2002" - 384,000 (for comparison)
"september 4, 2002" - 199,000 (more comparison)
"september 11th" - 1,390,000 (this one too --Wik)
"september 4th" - 121,000 (more comparison)
"september 11 attacks" - 289,000
"september 11 terrorist attacks" - 125,000
"september 11th, attacks" - 67,800
"september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 40,800
"september 11, 2001 attacks" - 30,200
"september 11th, terrorist attacks" - 28,700
"september 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 1,100
"september 11th, 2001 attacks" - 1,060

but...Pfortuny 20:04, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

VOTE HERE

  • September 11, 2001 attacks
  1. Tannin 09:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 18:34, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 19:02, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (I would also drop the 2001)
  5. Lou I 19:12, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  6. Arwel 20:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  7. Onebyone 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  8. WormRunner 21:19, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  9. Kokiri
  • September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
  1. Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  2. PMA 15:13, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rmhermen 15:24, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Tempshill 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  5. —Eloquence 19:10, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (if used consistently for CIA-sponsored terrorism as well)
  6. WhisperToMe 19:53, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  7. Pfortuny 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • September 11, 2001
  1. Anthony DiPierro 19:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Note that this vote is solely for the title. I don't think the word terrorist should be taken out of the text itself. If there are credible arguments that the attacks were not terrorism, they can be included. In any case, that is a separate vote. Anthony DiPierro 19:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a nice thing to have exceptions in any policy, and this one seems good enough for me. This explains my vote above. Pfortuny 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that calls for the term terrorist be applied consistently are politics in a thin disguise. It is fortunate that in this case, specifying "attacks" rather than "terrorist attacks" is sufficient to identify what the article is about, so I think that in the interests of avoiding a spree of people adding "terrorist" to various articles in order to make political points about government-sponsered terrorism we should just do the simple thing. Furthermore, talking about "the" definition of terrorism is disingenuous, since various groups have produced different definitions according to their biases and their aims, to reflect the different things that they mean when they talk about terrorism. Onebyone 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think calling them merely "attacks" dilutes the reality of the situation. Specifying "September 11, 2001" is likewise sufficient to identify what the article is about. As for "the" definition of terrorism, Misplaced Pages is based on common usage, isn't it? What this event is referred to as should be the only question. Even if it definitively wasn't terrorism, if it's overwhelmingly referred to as such that's the title we should use. We still call it Manifest Destiny, don't we? Anthony DiPierro 20:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is not "overwhelmingly" called terrorism. --Wik 20:51, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Nor is it "overwhelmingly" called "September 11, 2001 attacks." If you noticed, I didn't vote for either. Anthony DiPierro 20:54, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No one made that claim. There is no "overwhelmingly" used name, so we should just describe it in a concise and NPOV manner. --Wik 20:58, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear that neither title is NPOV. And my point about "overwhelmingly" was to defend the statement that definitions are meaningless. Anthony DiPierro 21:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree they would be meaningless if there were an overwhelmingly used name. But there isn't, so they aren't. And I don't see what's not NPOV about "September 11, 2001 attacks". --Wik 21:23, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I still say they're meaningless. But I guess I can't use the Manifest Destiny argument any more. In any case, I find it hard to see a definition of terrorism that doesn't include this event. Do you know of one? And what is not NPOV about "September 11, 2001 attacks" is that it implies that the attacks were not terrorist, especially when you type in "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" and get redirected. Finally, I don't see the problem with using "September 11, 2001." Anthony DiPierro 21:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Talk:September 11 attacks Add topic